It's not only in politics that leaders forge movements. Phillip Johnson has
developed what is called the "Intelligent Design" movement, which contends that
time plus chance (the mechanism for change in Darwinism) could not bring about
the complex order of life around us. Mr. Johnson is a Berkeley law professor
who, spurred by the crisis of a failed marriage, converted to Christianity in
midlife. He has written many books including, most recently, The Wedge of
Truth.

Q: You tell of a young man who went to Harvard and lost his Christian
faith. Why is this an all-too-common story?

A: Every course this young man took at Harvard was based on the assumption
of naturalistic philosophy-the idea that everything is governed by chance and
natural law-so that even if God existed, He would be incapable of doing anything.
God's existence was not so much disproved as rendered irrelevant to everything
worth studying.

Q: The crucial prop for naturalism is Darwinism. What's the cutting-edge
issue in evolution today?

A: The debate centers on one fundamental issue: Are natural forces information-creating?
Any text, whether a book or the DNA code, requires a complex, non-repeating
arrangement of letters. Can that kind of order be produced by chance or law?
The answer is no. Chance produces randomness, while physical law produces simple,
repetitive order (like using a macro on your computer to print a phrase over
and over). The only thing that produces complex, non-repeating, specified order
is an intelligent agent.

Q: What happens when Darwinism is applied outside science itself-to
social life and morality?

A: The field of evolutionary psychology applies Darwinism to human behavior,
and the results are grim. The logical conclusion of Darwinism is that all our
actions are the results of brain states produced by some combination of chance
and physical law-which undermines the very notion of moral choice. So arch-Darwinian
Richard Dawkins says we are merely "robots" programmed by DNA to make more DNA.

Q: What does Darwinism imply for the science of the mind?

A: Consistent Darwinists say there is no single, central "self," residing
somehow within the body, that makes decisions, holds opinions, loves, and hates.
That's dismissed as old-fashioned dualism. In the currently popular "computational"
theory, the mind is a set of computers that solve specific problems forwarded
by the senses. For example, Steven Pinker of MIT says the idea of a unified
self is merely a useful illusion, selected by evolution because our body needs
to be able to go one direction at a time.

Q: Computers function without consciousness. If the mind is a computer,
why are we conscious beings?

A: Some neuroscientists say we aren't-that consciousness is an illusion.
Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests that
we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about the nervous
system's physical mechanisms-the activation of neurons and so on.

This conclusion is so contrary to ordinary experience that many neuroscientists
search for some cut-off point where the logic of Darwinism does not apply. But,
of course, any stopping point is completely arbitrary. John Searle, my famous
colleague here at Berkeley, accepts naturalistic evolution while insisting that
it cannot explain the human mind. Critics say he simply jumps ship, and they're
right.

Q: Your book says the key issue is the definition of knowledge itself.

A: The prevailing definition of knowledge rests on the so-called fact/value
distinction. "Facts" are objective, rational, and true for everyone; "values"
are personal, subjective, and valid only for believers. Real knowledge can be
had only of "facts." That's why Darwinian evolution is permitted in the science
classroom, where we teach knowledge. But creation is relegated to the comparative
religion class, where we explore people's subjective beliefs.

Q: It seems that even those with Christian belief may hold correct doctrines
but treat them as meaningful only within a community of faith.

A: The typical tactic is to cede to science the authority to determine
the "facts," then try to salvage some area for Christian faith in the realm
of "value." But since "values" are not granted the status of genuine knowledge,
what you put there is eventually dismissed as subjective fantasy. Christians
need to insist that they are making genuine knowledge claims. I like to put
it this way: Is there any "-ology" in theology? Are we studying anything real?